Despite U.S. promise, soldiers in Iraq still buying their own body armor

[w4rma]

dupe

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Although Democrats have spoken out and have tried to pass laws the Republican-controlled Congress, apparantly, has still not acted on reimbursing troops for body armor they had to purchase because there haven't been enough available to go around.

How kind of Senator Kerry to speak out against not having enough body armor for the troops after voting against an $87 billion appropriations bill to buy, among other things, body armor for troops in Iraq.

At least he spoke out though... I guess actions no longer speak louder than words.

 

[w4rma]

He supported and voted for an alternate funding bill. It was voted against by the same folks who voted for the version that passed.

...
While the ad implies these were separate votes, the information is based on one vote on the entire $87 billion package, which passed the Senate 87-12. Kerry defended his vote by saying Bush had managed the war badly by not gaining international support. "The way you support the troops is to guarantee we do this right," Kerry said at the time.
...
Kerry's campaign issued a rebuttal Tuesday saying the Bush administration has proposed cutting veterans' benefits and citing a long list of increases in defense spending, military pay and benefits that Kerry supported.
http://www.beaconnewspaper.com/news...Kerrys.Vote.Against.Iraq.Funding-635452.shtml

Kerry was referring to a measure he co-sponsored that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush's tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That measure was rejected 57-42.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155

 

[Logan5]

so how does this fit in?

Observe this March 10th story from the Coalition Provisional Authority:

http://cpa-raq.org/pressreleases/20040310_Police_Body_Armor_Ceremony_31003.html

IRAQI RAILWAY POLICE RECEIVE 300 SETS OF BODY ARMOR;
EVERY OFFICER NOW BETTER EQUIPPED
TO CARRY OUT HIS WORK


Baghdad Central Train Station, Iraq. Today, the Iraqi Railway Police (IRP) received 300 sets of body armor from the US military. At a ceremony in downtown Baghdad, Marine Colonel Dennis Arinello presented the body armor to IRP officers in a ceremony that united Coalition Forces and Iraqis with a common goal – to protect their country, rebuild their economy, and make a safer future for all citizens. The body armor will help the Iraqi Railway Police search for explosive devices on trains and rail tracks with greater security.

Colonel Arinello told IRP officers the 300 sets of body armor had previously protected US Marines who served in Iraq. To demonstrate how safe Colonel Arinello felt in his body armor, he removed his personal flak jacket and gifted it to Colonel Asad, Head of the Iraqi Railway Police.

Colonel Arinello told IRP officers that “these flak jackets have protected Coalition Forces, now they will protect our Iraqi brothers. We are proud to work alongside you to rebuild a strong railroad infrastructure, safe for train passengers and secure for commerceâ€. The Iraqi Railway Police officers cheered as Colonel Arinello and Colonel Asad embraced – a symbol of their friendship and close professional relationship.

I can't figure it out, are they flack jackets, or are they body armor?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

He supported and voted for an alternate funding bill. It was voted against by the same folks who voted for the version that passed.

That is not strictly correct w4rma. Everyone here just went through the blow-by-blow of S.1805 in the Senate. We know how these bills work.

While the ad implies these were separate votes, the information is based on one vote on the entire $87 billion package, which passed the Senate 87-12. Kerry defended his vote by saying Bush had managed the war badly by not gaining international support. "The way you support the troops is to guarantee we do this right," Kerry said at the time.

What ad are you talking about? I didn't mention any ad. The vote was on an $87 billion package (including body armor) for troops in Iraq. Up or down vote on the whole package. Kerry voted "no" - how is that supporting the troops or "doing this right"?

Kerry's campaign issued a rebuttal Tuesday saying the Bush administration has proposed cutting veterans' benefits and citing a long list of increases in defense spending, military pay and benefits that Kerry supported.

Well he supported the war in Iraq too, didn't he? Or is this another one of his "nuanced" positions? I notice that during S.1689 (the funding bill for Iraq) Senator Kerry couldn't be bothered to vote for several veterans benefits that were proposed as amendments to that bill, though he had time to vote for his tax increase and against the final bill after his tax increase was rejected:S. Amdt. 1823 - To provide emergency relief for veterans healthcare
S. Amdt. 1811 - To amend title 10, United States Code, to reduce the age for receipt of military retired pay for nonregular service from 60 to 55.

Kerry was referring to a measure he co-sponsored that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush's tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That measure was rejected 57-42.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155

That was an AMENDMENT (S.Amdt. 1796 108th Congress, 1st Session) to S.1689. The Amendment said:

SA 1796. Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. CORZINE, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. LAUTENBERG) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1689, making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes; as follows:


At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. __. (a) PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR SECURITY AND STABILIZATION OF IRAQ THROUGH PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF REDUCTIONS IN HIGHEST INCOME TAX RATE FOR INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS.--Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax imposed) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

``(j) PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR SECURITY AND STABILIZATION OF IRAQ THROUGH PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF REDUCTIONS IN HIGHEST INCOME TAX RATE.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--In the case of any taxable year beginning in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, the 35 percent rate of tax under subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) shall be adjusted to the percentage determined by the Secretary to result in an increase in revenues into the Treasury for all taxable years beginning in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 equal to $87,000,000,000.

``(2) ADJUSTMENT OF TABLES.--The Secretary shall adjust the tables prescribed under subsection (f) to carry out this subsection.''.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning in 2005.

So in other words, the ONLY thing this amendment did was raise taxes on a specific portion of the American public that already pays better than half the taxes in this nation - and when Kerry didn't get that amendment, he suddenly decided that $87 billion for troops (including body armor) was no longer a priority. I support the troops as long as you are willing to stick it to the rich? There is a principled stand. Though personally, I can't stand those principles.

 

[444]

So what ?


Wasn't FDR a Democrat ?
The whole of WWII was fought without body armor.

 

[Don Gwinn]

444, that doesn't make it OK in my book. We didn't use night vision in WWII, either. We should still be issuing it today, though.
No helicopters in WWII, either, but they sure are important now.


Black Bart, Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. I hope that clears things up for you. Those are his own words, by the way, not mine.

:banghead:

 

[thefitzvh]

Guys, don't feed the trolls.

James

 

[444]

I think you missed the point Don.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Because there wasn't anything to rectify in 1998. Except for the PNAC crowd (who are now in power), noone was even thinking about invading Iraq or any other nation and especially not two at the same time.

Using your (and your idol's) reasoning the military probably wouldn't have needed weapons ( ie, F-16, F-18, M1 Abrams, Bradley, etc) until we decided to invade someone.

Our military is overstretched and part of the reason for that is extremely poor planning on the part of the folks who pushed for these invasions.

Our military is overstretched and part of the reason for that is the massive force reductions (approximately 40%) instituted under a Democratic administration